OLAYINKA BRAIMOH & Anor. v. AHMED USMAN ODODO & Ors (SUPREME COURT,2024)

CASE TITLE 

OLAYINKA BRAIMOH & Anor. v. AHMED USMAN ODODO & Ors (SUPREME COURT, 2024)

CITATION

BRAIMOH v. ODODO [2025] 3 NWLR (Pt.1980) 481

COURT NAME AND BENCH

Court: Supreme Court of Nigeria

Justices: Mohammed Lawal Garba, J.S.C (Presided)

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, J.S.C

Tijani Abubakar, J.S.C

Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C (Read the Leading Judgment)

Mohammed Baba Idris, J.S.C

DATE OF JUDGEMENT

23rd August, 2024.

PARTIES INVOLVED

Appellants:  Olayinka Braimoh, the 1st appellant was a politician and candidate for the 2023 Gubernatorial election in Kogi state and; Action Alliance, the 2nd appellant was the political party Braimoh belonged to and contested under.

Respondent: Ahmed Usman Ododo, 1st respondent, a politician and also candidate for the 2023 gubernatorial election in Kogi. All Progressive Congress, the 2nd respondent and political party under which the 1st respondent contested and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 3rd respondent conducted the gubernatorial election in Kogi State on November 10 2023.

INTRODUCTION

BRAIMOH v. ODODO is a noteworthy case based of election petition. The petition came to life after the 2023 gubernatorial election held on 11th November 2023. Olayinka Braimoh filed the petition against Ododo, his political party-All Progressive Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission. The petition was instituted at the Kogi State Governorship Election Tribunal. Between November 2023 and August 2024 the petition passed through the Kogi State Governorship Election Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and eventually the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

KEY FACTS

• The 3rd respondent conducted the gubernatorial election in Kogi State on the 11th November, 2023.
• The 1st appellant contested in the election under the 2nd appellant.
• The 1st respondent contested the election under the 2nd respondent respectively.
• The first respondent obtained a total vote of 446,237 whereas the1st appellant’s vote was 1,240.
• The 1st respondent was declare winner and governor elect by the 3rd respondent.
• The 1st and 2nd appellants dissatisfied with the outcome contended the election result by filing an election petition with the Kogi State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.
• The respondents respectively filed preliminary objections and it was overruled.
• The petition was determined on its merit and the tribunal dismissed the petition.
• The appellants dissatisfied appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed upholding the decision of the tribunal.
• Still dissatisfied, the appellants appealed further to the Supreme Court.
• The 3rd respondent filed a preliminary objection to the appeal.

LEGAL ISSUES

The parties had distilled a couple of issues to be determined by the court, however only one issue was determined by the apex court before it passed its judgment. The issue determined by the Supreme Court was:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO AN APPEAL; Whether the appellants were no longer entitled to appeal for failing to file the Notice of appeal within the stipulated time frame.

ARGUMENTS

3rd Respondent’s Argument (Independent National Electoral Commission) 

The respondent claimed the appeal was incompetent and the court lacked jurisdiction because the appellants filed its notice of appeal out of time and that striped the court of its jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal and the appellants’ the right to appeal citing paragraph 2 of the Supreme Court Election Appeals Practice Directions 2023. 3rd Respondent’s counsel relied on the cases of Audu v. Wada (2016) 12 NWLR (pt 1527) 382 and Ihenacho & Ors. v. Egbulah & Ors.  (2021) LPELR-55931 (Supreme Court), (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1795) 174.

Appellants’ Argument (Olayinka Braimoh, Action Alliance)

The appellants argument in response was that the date of the delivery of judgment was not to be included when calculating the time frame within which the appellants had to file the notice of appeal relying on the section 15 (2) of the Interpretation Act. Arguing that the practice direction cannot override the constitution counsel to the appellant contented that by virtue of section 285 (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria an appeal from the court of appeal in an election petition matter shall be heard and disposed off within 60 days from the date of judgment. They cited Akeredolu & Ors. V. Akinremi (1985) LPELR-327; (19850 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 787,Auto Import Export v. Adebayo (20202) 18 NWLR (Pt.799) 554.

FINAL JUDGEMENT

The court decided on the appeal based on the preliminary objection only and not the main ground of appeal.

The court unanimously dismissing the appeal held that the appellant had lost the right to appeal by filing the Notice of Appeal out of time because the limitation period in election petition matters has long been established and remains untouchable.

The court awarded cost of Five Million Naira (N5, 000,000) in favor of the respondents against the appellants.

LEGAL REASONING/RATIO DECIDENDI

The principle regarding hearing and determining preliminary objections differs when it comes to the Supreme Court. Unlike other lower courts, the Supreme Court need not hear the main suit or appeal if the preliminary objection succeeds. Hence the reason the court did not probe further to determine the main ground of appeal. The preliminary objection contending the court’s jurisdiction was successful therefore the appeal was incompetent regardless of whatever the grounds might be.

The court analyzed the provision of paragraph 2 of the Supreme Court Election Petition Practice Directions 2023 which provides that “An appellant shall file in the registry of the Court of Appeal, Notice and ground of appeal within 14 days from the date of the delivery of the ruling or judgment appealed against.”  

In this case, the judgment of the Court of appeal was delivered on the 10th August 2024 and the appellants filed the Notice of Appeal on the 26th August 2024. That makes clear 16 days which is beyond the time frame stipulated by the law. 

The court went further to analyze the provision of section 15 (2) of the Interpretation Act which provides that in the calculating the period of time for which an act is to be done, the day the event occurred is to be excluded. The court went further stating that even if the method of computation prescribed by the Interpretation Act is to be followed, the appellants were still out of time by a day (as in 15days). 

However, the Interpretation Act‘s method of the computing time doesn’t apply to election petition matters, in which case the day of occurrence is to be included. The court relied on it position in earlier cases such as Bello v. Yusuf & Ors. (2019) LPELR-47918; (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt.1695) 250, Labour Party v. Yahaya Bello (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1548) 145

The court emphasized that the limitation period in election petition matter is ironclad because of the delicate nature of the matter and the court is not out to undermine the authority of the Constitution by adhering to the provisions of the Practice direction as insinuated by the appellants in their argument. Rather it is in ensuring that such appeal is heard and determined within the short period of 60days from the date the judgment was delivered as provided in section  285 (7). The court cited Omisore & Anor. V.Aregbesola & Ors. (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 208

Abubakar J.S.C; expressed his displeasure at the appellants attempt to hide under the provision of the Interpretation Act when there are several judgment the longstanding provision of the Supreme Court Practice Direction stating that lawyers must be sincere when examining clients cases before heading to court. In his words; “Counsel must have the courage to turn away deficient and needless appeal otherwise they must be ready to bear the full responsibility.”

CONCLUSION

The Braimoh v. Ododo case is significant in more than one topic of learning which includes Preliminary Objection and Computation of limitation period.

The case elucidated the difference between the Supreme Court and other courts attitude in hearing preliminary Objection and the reason for it.

It clarified any confusion that might exist when it comes to understanding the way limitation periods in various suits are calculated. While the Interpretation Act says to exclude the date the event happened, in election petition matters the word “from…” means to start counting from the day it event happened. Simply put one is to count the day the event happened as day one. 

The case emphasizes the sacrosanctity of period limitation in election petition matter which is important in preventing sore losers from running to the court/tribunal at any time they please. It also send a message to counsels to pay attention to details and also be honest with their clients in ensuring they don’t turn the court to a dumping ground.

Overall, this appeal brings to mind the equity maxim; “Delay defeats equity” it doesn’t matter if the appellant truly had good ground for appeal or if the appeal would have been decided in their favour. However, because they didn’t act with reasonable diligence to enforce their right of appeal they lost the right to be granted equitable remedy in such instance. Filing Notice of Appeal 16days after judgment was delivered show lack of diligence in the appellants and equity aid the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.